Part ofa series on
Indo-European topics
Languages List of Indo-European languages Extant Albanoid Albanian Armenian Balto-Slavic Baltic Slavic Celtic Germanic Hellenic Greek Indo-Iranian Indo-Aryan Iranian Nuristani Italic Romance Extinct Anatolian Tocharian Paleo-Balkan Dacian Illyrian Liburnian Messapic Mysian Paeonian Phrygian Thracian Reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language Phonology:Sound laws,Accent,Ablaut Hypothetical Balkanic Daco-Thracian Graeco-Albanian Graeco-Armenian Graeco-Aryan Graeco-Phrygian Indo-Hittite Italo-Celtic Thraco-Illyrian Grammar Vocabulary Root Verbs Nouns Pronouns Numerals Particles Other Proto-Albanian Proto-Anatolian Proto-Armenian Proto-Germanic (Proto-Norse) Proto-Italo-Celtic (Proto-Celtic ·Proto-Italic) Proto-Greek Proto-Balto-Slavic (Proto-Slavic ·Proto-Baltic) Proto-Indo-Iranian (Proto-Indo-Aryan,Proto-Iranian,Proto-Nuristani)
Philology Hittite inscriptions Hieroglyphic Luwian Linear B Rigveda Avesta Homer Behistun Greek epigraphy Phrygian epigraphy Messapic epigraphy Latin epigraphy Gaulish epigraphy Runic epigraphy Ogham Gothic Bible Bible translations into Armenian Tocharian script Old Irish glosses Albanian Kanun
Origins Homeland Proto-Indo-Europeans Society Religion Mainstream Kurgan hypothesis Indo-European migrations Eurasian nomads Alternative and fringe Anatolian hypothesis Armenian hypothesis Beech argument Indigenous Aryanism Baltic homeland Paleolithic continuity theory
Archaeology Chalcolithic (Copper Age) Pontic Steppe Domestication of the horse Kurgan Kurgan stelae Kurgan culture Steppe cultures Bug–Dniester Sredny Stog Dnieper–Donets Samara Khvalynsk Yamnaya Mykhailivka culture Novotitarovskaya culture Caucasus Maykop East Asia Afanasievo Eastern Europe Usatove Cernavodă Cucuteni Northern Europe Corded ware Baden Middle Dnieper Bronze Age Pontic Steppe Chariot Yamnaya Catacomb Multi-cordoned ware Poltavka Srubnaya Northern/Eastern Steppe Abashevo culture Andronovo Sintashta Europe Globular Amphora Corded ware Bell Beaker Únětice Trzciniec Nordic Bronze Age Terramare Tumulus Urnfield Proto-Villanovan Lusatian Este South Asia Bishkent Vakhsh BMAC Ochre Coloured Pottery Copper Hoard Cemetery H Gandhara grave Iron Age Steppe Chernoles Europe Thraco-Cimmerian Hallstatt Latial Jastorf Caucasus Colchian Central Asia Yaz India Painted Grey Ware Northern Black Polished Ware
Peoples and societies Bronze Age Anatolian peoples (Hittites) Armenians Mycenaean Greeks Indo-Iranians Iron AgeIndo-Aryans Indo-Aryans Iranians Iranians Nuristanis Nuristanis East Asia Wusun Yuezhi Europe Celts Gauls Celtiberians Insular Celts Cimmerians Hellenic peoples Italic peoples Germanic peoples Paleo-Balkan/Anatolia Thracians Dacians Illyrians Paeonians Phrygians Scythians Middle Ages East Asia Tocharians Europe Albanians Balts Slavs Norsemen/Medieval Scandinavians Middle Ages Indo-Aryan Medieval India Iranian Greater Iran
Religion and mythology Reconstructed Proto-Indo-European mythology Proto-Indo-Iranian religion Historical Vedic religion Ancient Iranian religion Historical Hittite Indo-Aryan Vedic Hinduism Buddhism Jainism Sikhism Iranian Persian Zoroastrianism Kurdish Yazidism Yarsanism Scythian Ossetian Others Armenian European Paleo-Balkan (Albanian·Illyrian·Thracian·Dacian) Greek Roman Celtic Irish Scottish Breton Welsh Cornish Germanic Anglo-Saxon Continental Norse Baltic Latvian Lithuanian Slavic Practices Fire rituals Horse sacrifice Sati Winter solstice/Yule
Indo-European studies Scholars Marija Gimbutas J. P. Mallory Institutes Copenhagen Studies in Indo-European Publications Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture The Horse, the Wheel, and Language Journal of Indo-European Studies Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch Indo-European Etymological Dictionary
Category
v t e

TheProto-Italic language is the ancestor of theItalic languages, most notablyLatin and its descendants, theRomance languages. It is not directly attested in writing, but has beenreconstructed to some degree through thecomparative method. Proto-Italic descended from the earlierProto-Indo-European language.^[1]

Although an equation between archeological and linguistic evidence cannot be established with certainty, the Proto-Italic language is generally associated with theTerramare (1700–1150 BC) andProto-Villanovan cultures (1200–900 BC).^[2]

On the other hand, work inglottochronology has argued that Proto-Italic split off from the westernProto-Indo-European dialects some time before 2500 BC.^[3][4] It was originally spoken byItalic tribes north of theAlps before they moved south into theItalian Peninsula during the second half of the 2nd millennium BC. Linguistic evidence also points to early contacts withCeltic tribes andProto-Germanic speakers.^[2]

A list of regularphonetic changes from Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Italic follows. Because Latin is the only well-attested Italic language, it forms the main source for the reconstruction of Proto-Italic. It is therefore not always clear whether certain changes apply to all of Italic (a pre-PI change), or only to Latin (a post-PI change), because of lack of conclusive evidence.

• Palatovelars merged with plainvelars, a change termedcentumization: *ḱ > *k, *ǵ > *g, *ǵʰ > *gʰ
  • Sequences of palatovelars and *w merged withlabiovelars: *ḱw, *ǵw, *ǵʰw > *kʷ, *gʷ, *gʷʰ
• *p...kʷ > *kʷ...kʷ, a change also found in Celtic.
• Labiovelars lose their labialisation before a consonant: *kʷC, *gʷC, *gʷʰC > *kC, *gC, *gʰC.
• Obstruent consonants become (unaspirated) voiceless before another voiceless consonant (usually *s or *t).
• Voicedaspirates becomefricatives. Word-initially, they become voiceless, while they are allophonically voiced word-medially. Judging from Oscan evidence, they apparently remained fricatives even after a nasal consonant. In most other Italic languages they developed into stops later in that position.
  • *bʰ > *f (medially *β)
  • *dʰ > *θ (medially *ð)
  • *gʰ > *x (medially *ɣ)
  • *gʷʰ > *xʷ (medially *ɣʷ)
• *s was also allophonically voiced to *z word-medially.^[5]
• *sr, *zr > *θr, *ðr.^{[clarification needed]}
• *θ, *xʷ > *f. Found inVeneticvhagsto/hvagsto (compare Latinfaciō). The voiced allophones *ð and *ɣʷ remained distinct from *β in Latin and Venetic, but also merged in Osco-Umbrian.
• *tl > *kl word-medially.^[5]
• Final *t became *d^[6]

• *l̥, *r̥ > *ol, *or^[7]
• *m̥, *n̥ > *əm, *ən (see below on "Vowels")
• *j is lost between vowels. The resulting vowels in hiatus contract into a long vowel if the two vowels are the same.
• *ew > *ow.^[7]
• *o > *a in open syllables after labials and *l.^[8]
• *-mj- > -*nj-^[9]

Thelaryngeals are a class of hypothetical PIE sounds *h₁, *h₂, *h₃ that usually disappeared in late PIE, leaving coloring effects on adjacent vowels. Their disappearance left some distinctive sound combinations in Proto-Italic. In the changes below, the # follows standard practice in denoting a word boundary; that is, # at the beginning denotes word-initial.^[10] H denotes any of the three laryngeals.

The simpler Italic developments of laryngeals are shared by many other Indo-European branches:

• *h₁e > *e, *h₂e > *a, *h₃e > *o
• *eh₁ > *ē, *eh₂ > *ā, *eh₃ > *ō
• *H > *a between obstruents
• Laryngeals are lost word-initially before a consonant.

More characteristic of Italic are the interactions of laryngeals withsonorant consonants. Here, R represents a sonorant, and C a consonant.

• #HRC > #aRC and CHRC > CaRC, but #HRV > #RV
• CRHC > CRāC, but CRHV > CaRV
• CiHC and probably CHiC > CīC

• General loss of thedual, with only a few relics remaining.^[11]
• Loss of the instrumental case.^[11]

• [ŋ] was an allophone of/n/ before a velar consonant.
• The voiced fricatives[β],[ð],[ɣ],[ɣʷ] and[z] were incomplementary distribution with word-initial voiceless fricatives[ɸ],[θ],[x],[xʷ] and[s], and were thus originally simplyallophones of each other. However, at some point in the Proto-Italic period, the allophony was somewhat disrupted by the loss of the voiceless allophones[θ] and[xʷ], which merged with[ɸ]. Scholars^[who?] disagree on whether to reconstruct Proto-Italic with the phonemes/θ~ð/ and/xʷ~ɣʷ/ still present (hence assuming that the merger with[ɸ] was a later areal change that spread across all extant dialects, possibly occurring simultaneous with or after the loss of the corresponding voiced fricatives), or to reconstruct Proto-Italic with the phonemes' voiceless allophones merged into/ɸ~β/, and their voiced allophones becoming independent phonemes/ð/,/ɣʷ/. Both of these sounds are relatively uncommon cross-linguistically, and eventually they were eliminated in all later languages, but differently in each.

• /ə/ was perhaps not a true phoneme, but was inserted before consonants as a prop vowel. It can be reconstructed based on the outcome of the Proto-Indo-European syllabic nasals*m̥ and*n̥, which appear in Latin as *em, *en or *im, *in, but also as *am, *an inOsco-Umbrian alongside *em, *en. Thus, it appears necessary to reconstruct/ə/ as a distinct sound. However, Meiser reconstructs a nasal vowel/ẽ/ as this prop vowel, citing howOld French/ẽ/ evolved to modern French/ɑ̃/ as a parallel.^[13]

Proto-Italic had the following diphthongs:^[12]

• Short:*ai,*ei,*oi,*au,*ou
• Long:*āi,*ēi,*ōi

Osthoff's law remained productive in Proto-Italic. This caused long vowels to shorten when they were followed by asonorant and another consonant in the same syllable: VːRC > VRC. As the long diphthongs were also VːR sequences, they could only occur word-finally, and were shortened elsewhere. Long vowels were also shortened before word-final*-m. This is the cause of the many occurrences of short*-a- in, for example, the endings of the ā-stems or of ā-verbs.

Proto-Italic words may have had a fixed stress on the first syllable, a stress pattern which probably existed in most descendants in at least some periods. In Latin, initial stress is posited for theOld Latin period, after which it gave way to the "Classical" stress pattern. However, fixed initial stress may alternatively be anareal feature postdating Proto-Italic, since thevowel reductions which it is posited to explain are not found before the mid-first millennium BC.^[14] Furthermore, the persistence of Proto-Indo-European mobile accent is required in early Proto-Italic for Brent Vine's (2006) reformulation of Thurneysen-Havet's law (where pre-tonic *ou > *au) to work.^[15]

Nouns could have one of three genders: masculine, feminine and neuter. They declined for seven of the eight Proto-Indo-European cases: nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, dative, ablative and locative. The instrumental case had been lost. Nouns also declined for number in singular and plural. The dual number was no longer distinguished, although a few remnants (like Latinduo,ambō) still preserved some form of the inherited dual inflection.

This class corresponds to thesecond declension of Latin, basically divided into masculine and neuter nouns. It descends from the Proto-Indo-European thematic declension. Most nouns in this class were masculine or neuter, but there may have been some feminine nouns as well (e.g., names of plants such as Latin "papyrus").

• The genitive singular in*-ī is of unknown origin, but is found in both Italic and Celtic. It mostly ousted the older inherited genitive in*-osjo in Latin. The older form is found in a few inscriptions, such aspopliosio valesiosio on theLapis Satricanus, likely rendered asPublii Valerii in classical Latin.^[19] It is also continued in some pronominal genitives, such ascuius <*kʷojjo-s <PIE*kʷosjo, with*-s added by analogy with the consonant stem genitive in*-os.^[20] In Osco-Umbrian, neither ending survives, being replaced with*-eis, the i-stem ending.
• The nominative plural was originally*-ōs for nouns and adjectives, and*-oi for pronominal forms. The distribution in Proto-Italic is unclear, but both endings certainly still existed. The*-ōs ending was replaced altogether in Latin in favour of*-oi, whence the classical-ī. In Osco-Umbrian, the reverse happened, where*-oi was replaced with*-ōs, whence Oscan-ús, Umbrian-us.
• In Old Latin, the genitive plural was still generally-om, later-um. It was then reformed based on the ā-stem form*-āzom, giving the classical-ōrum.
• Neuter o-stems also had a dual ending-oi (<*-oyh₁), surviving in some Latin relics likecaelum "sky",frēnum "bridle" andrāstrum "rake", whose plurals end in-ī instead of-a.^[21]

This class corresponds to thefirst declension of Latin. It derives primarily from Proto-Indo-European nouns in*-eh₂-, and contained mostly feminine nouns, and maybe a few masculines, such as names of jobs in Classical Latin, some of them being loanwords from Ancient Greek (e.g., incola, nauta, poeta).

• The accusative singular ending would have been*-am originally, due to shortening of long vowels before final*-m. However, a long vowel is found in the attested forms. This long vowel most likely arose by analogy with the other endings that have a long vowel.^[23]
• The genitive plural ending was originally a pronominal form, PIE*-eh₂-soHom.
• The genitive singular in -s, still used in Old Latin, went extinct in Classical Latin except in the fixed expression "Pater familias".

This class contained nouns with stems ending in a variety of consonants. They included root nouns, n-stems, r-stems, s-stems and t-stems among others. It corresponds to thethird declension of Latin, which also includes the i-stems, originally a distinct class.

Masculine and feminine nouns declined alike, while neuters had different forms in the nominative/accusative/vocative.

Nouns in this class often had a somewhat irregular nominative singular form. This created several subtypes, based on the final consonant of the stem.

• For most consonant stem nouns, the ending of the nominative/vocative singular was-s for masculine and feminine nouns. This ending would cause devoicing, delabialisation and/or hardening of the stem-final consonant, as seen in*sniks above. Neuter nouns had no ending.
• n-stems generally had the ending*-ō, with the infix*-on- (or maybe*-en-) in the other cases; e.g., PIt*sermō, sermōnes, in which*-mō derives from PIE*-mō <**-mons. On the other hand, neuters had*-ən in the nom/voc/acc singular, while the stem of the remaining forms is unclear. An example is*kreimən, *kreimənVs, from PIE*kréymn̥, in which-mn̥ is related to**-mons.
• r-stems had*-ēr, alternating with*-(e)r-. The alternation in vowel length was lost in Latin, but is preserved in Oscan.
• s-stems had*-ōs (for masculines and feminines) or*-os (for neuters). This alternated with*-ez- (or maybe*-oz- in some masculine/feminine nouns) in the other forms.
• Ther/n-stems were a small group of neuter nouns. These had*-or in the nominative/vocative/accusative singular, but*-(e)n- in the remaining forms.

Other notes:

• The genitive singular had two possible endings. Both are attested side by side in Old Latin, although the ending-es/-is may also be from the i-stems (see below). In Osco-Umbrian, only the i-stem ending-eis is found.
• The Latin masculine nominative plural ending-ēs (with a long vowel) was taken from the i-stems.
• The neuter nominative/vocative/accusative plural originally had short*-a as the ending, or lengthening of the vowel before the final consonant. Already in Italic, this was replaced with the o-stem ending*-ā.
• The dative (and ablative/locative?) plural ending would have originally been added directly to the stem, with no intervening vowel. In Latin, there is an intervening-e- or-i-, while in Osco-Umbrian the ending is replaced altogether. It's not clear what the Proto-Italic situation was.

This class corresponds to the nouns of the Latinthird declension that had the genitive plural ending-ium (rather than-um). In Latin, the consonant stems gradually merged with this class. This process continued into the historical era; e.g. inCaesar's time (c. 50 BC) the i-stems still had a distinct accusative plural ending-īs, but this was replaced with the consonant-stem ending-ēs by the time ofAugustus (c. AD 1). In Proto-Italic, as in the other Italic languages, i-stems were still very much a distinct type and showed no clear signs of merging.

Masculine and feminine nouns declined alike, while neuters had different forms in the nominative/accusative/vocative.

• There were apparently two different forms for the genitive singular. The form-eis is found in Osco-Umbrian. However,-es appears in early Latin, while there is no sign of*-eis. This could reflect the consonant-stem ending, but it could also come from*-jes.^[30] Compare also*-wos of the u-stems, whichis attested in Old Latin, and may represent a parallel formation.
• The original form of the neuter nominative/vocative/accusative plural was*-ī, from PIE*-ih₂. Already in Italic, this was extended by adding the o-stem ending to it, thus culminating into either*-īā or*-jā.

This class corresponds to thefourth declension of Latin. They were historically parallel to the i-stems, and still showed many similar forms, withj/i being replaced withw/u. However, sound changes had made them somewhat different over time.

• The neuter nominative/vocative/accusative singular must have originally been short*-u, but in Latin only long-ū is found. It is unclear what the origin of this could be. It may be a remnant of a dual ending, considering that neuter u-stems were rare, and the few that survived tended to occur in pairs.^[34]
• Like the i-stems, the u-stems had two possible types of genitive singular ending, with an unclear distribution.*-ous is found in Oscan, and it is also the origin of the usual Latin ending-ūs. However, theSenatus consultum de Bacchanalibus inscription attestssenatvos, and the ending-uis (from*-wes) is also found in a few sources.^[35]
• The masculine/feminine nominative/vocative plural is not securely reconstructable. Latin-ūs seems to reflect*-ous, but from PIE*-ewes the form*-owes (Latin*-uis) would be expected. The ending is not attested in Osco-Umbrian or Old Latin, which might have otherwise given conclusive evidence.^[36]
• The original form of the neuter nominative/vocative/accusative plural was*-ū. Already in Italic, this was extended by adding the o-stem ending to it, like in the i-stems, thus culminating in either *-wā or*-ūā.

Adjectives inflected much the same as nouns. Unlike nouns, adjectives did not have inherent genders. Instead, they inflected for all three genders, taking on the same gender-form as the noun they referred to.

Adjectives followed the same inflectional classes of nouns. The largest were the o/ā-stem adjectives (which inflected as o-stems in the masculine and neuter, and as ā-stems in the feminine), and the i-stems. Present active participles of verbs (in*-nts) and the comparative forms of adjectives (in*-jōs) inflected as consonant stems. There were also u-stem adjectives originally, but they had been converted to i-stems by adding i-stem endings onto the existing u-stem, thus giving the nominative singular*-wis.

Declension of Personal Pronouns:^[37]

Note: For the third person pronoun, Proto-Italic*is would have been used.

Declension of Relative Pronouns:^[38]

Declension of Interrogative Pronouns:^[38]

Declension of Demonstrative Pronouns:^[39]

*is "this, that"

From Proto-Indo-European, the Proto-Italic present aspect changed in a couple of ways. Firstly, a new past indicative suffix of*-β- was created. This likely occurred due to the elision of word-final*i within the Indo-European primary verb endings (E.g. PIE Present Indicative*h₁ésti > PIt*est, but also PIE Past Indicative*h₁ést).^{[citation needed]} The PIE dual person was also lost within Proto-Italic verbs just as it was in Proto-Italic nouns.^{[citation needed]}

Proto-Italic may have developed a type of sigmatic future formation, which is itself possibly reflected in theOld Latin and Sabellic sigmatic futures. For instance, compare the Old Latin sigmatic future formfaxō to the standard Classical Latin non-sigmatic futurefaciam.^[40] The ultimate source of the sigmatic forms is unclear.^[41] The linguist Reiner Lipp suggests that the s-infix future in Proto-Italic continued an originally athematic paradigm, arguing that the Old Latin sigmatic aorist subjunctive forms (i.e.faxim,faxis, etc) reflect the Proto-Indo-European athematic optative infix*-ih₁-.^[42][43] The possibly s-future forms in Sabellic also may display athematic inflectional endings, such as in the Oscan and Umbrian future formfust,^[42] which Lipp argues may reflect an older Proto-Italic from*fū-s-ti.^[44] Despite the possible athematic origins of certain forms, the sigmatic future paradigm in Old Latin was broadly thematic, perhaps indicating that it underwent a partial thematicization process in Proto-Italic,^[45] before eventually becoming completely thematicized during the transition into Old Latin.^[46] However, the linguistTobias Søborg argues that the Sabellic s-future could have emerged due to the syncope of an earlier thematic paradigm, thereby allowing for a stronger connection between the two Italic subbranches. In support of his theory, Søborg cites the Umbrian future formeest, which he derives from an earlier thematic term*h₁éyset(i).^[47]

Synchronically, sigmatic futures can be understood as the combination of the stem of the perfect passive participle, the s-infix, and the inflection endings (e.g.ius-sus andiussō).^[48] Newer sigmatic futures may have formed according to this model. For instance, the verbrumpō produces the sigmatic futurerupsō, which perhaps lost the-m- due to the influence of the participleruptus.^[49] Lipp argues that this pattern must have begun producing innovative formations already by the pre-Proto-Italic period. For instance, the Old Latin sigmatic future termnoxō may derive from the medialsyncope of an earlier form*noke-s-, itself possibly formed from Proto-Italic*nokeō.^[50] However, the Sabellic s-future may have been formed directly to the present stem and not to a stem deprived of any markers of present tense. For example, the Oscan s-futuredidest was possibly formed from the stem of Proto-Italic*didō. Thus, the Sabellic and Latin sigmatic futures may reflect separate Proto-Italic paradigms, although Lipps suggests that the s-futures in Sabellic derive from the same source as the Latin sigmatic forms and merely underwent a post-Proto-Italic remodeling.^[51]

The linguistMichiel de Vaan posits that the source for both the Latin and Sabellic sigmatic futures may have been Proto-Indo-European suffix*-(e)s-, which perhaps could form either athematichysterokinetic zero-grade presents or athematic lengthened e-grade aorists.^[52] According to de Vaan, the sigmatic formfaxō may reflect a pre-form*fak-es-, which de Vaan suggests is also attested in Latinfacessō.^[53] In Sabellic, this suffix may have become generalized as the standard future-forming morpheme affixed to the present stem of a verb, perhaps resulting in terms such as Oscanpertemest and Umbrianferest.^[52][54] Based on this model, the linguistFrederik Kortlandt postulates that the Osco-Umbrian termfust reflects Proto-Italic*fu-es-/*fu-s-,^[55] although Lipp argues that this paradigm should regularly produce*fuw-es-t in Sabellic. Furthermore, the existence of such a suffix in Proto-Indo-European is contentious due to a lack of comparative evidence.^[56]

The Old Latin sigmatic future has been related to a Proto-Indo-European s-desiderative suffix.^[40] There is semantic precedent in other Indo-European languages for a shift from a desiderative to a future meaning—compare the Ancient Greek s-future, such as in the Ancient Greek future formδήξομαι ("dḗxomai"),^[57][58] which may derive from the desiderative suffix*-(h₁)seti.^[59] However, the philologistWolfgang de Melo argues that a desiderative origin should produce asimple future tense withoutaspectual markers.^[60] Lipp suggests that the Old Latin sigmatic future tense may have been characterized by theterminative aspect, meaning that it potentially described actions which were to be completed in the future (e.g. "will get it done").^[41] According to Lipp, the terminative meaning of the Latin sigmatic future may have naturally evolved from the Proto-Indo-European desiderative,^[40] which possibly described motion towards the completion of an action (e.g. "going to do").^[41] Morphologically, a derivation from the suffix*-(h₁)seti is problematic: Søborg notes that the Latin terms show no evidence of the laryngeal, although this irregularity could itself be explained if the paradigm was generalized based on terms in which the laryngeal was lost due to the presence ofobstruents in the stem.^[59] Furthermore, non-aoristic sigmatic formations in other Indo-European language generally require the e-grade of the root, whereas the Latin s-future often shows the zero-grade.^[61]

No other Indo-European cognates provide a clear morphological match for the sigmatic future in Latin.^[62] InOld Irish andVedic Sanskrit there is evidence for a thematic zero-grade paradigm with initial reduplication and a sigmatic suffix (see Sanskritcíkitsati), although de Melo argues that the lack of reduplication in Latin and the indications of an originally athematic paradigm complicate a possible connection between these terms.^[63] Kortlandt argues that the Old Irish s-subjunctive holds athematic origins and thus may serve as a parallel to the Latin s-future. Moreover, Kortlandt connects the future forms in East Baltic, which he argues to have derived from an earlier subjunctive paradigm,^[64] and theTocharian s-future, which may represent a thematicized class of formerly athematic sigmatic verbs.^[65] The linguists Jeremey Clackson and Geoffrey Horrocks argue that the sigmatic future and aorist in Latin may simultaneously derive from aorist and desiderative formations, whose morphology and semantics were merged andlevelled as their origins were obfuscated by extensive phonological shifts.^[66]

The sigmatic future indicative may have derived from the subjunctive of a Proto-Indo-European sigmatic aorist, and the Latin sigmatic aorist subjunctive may have derived from theoptative of a Proto-Indo-European sigmatic aorist.^[51] If this theory is accepted, then the first sigmatic forms may have emerged prior to the aorist-perfect merger in Latin.^[67] Certain verbs in Latin such asserpō contain both sigmatic perfects and futures, perhaps indicating that—at least with these terms specifically—the s-futures are older formations that may have been modeled after the Proto-Italic aorist.^[49] However, the Proto-Indo-European sigmatic aorist required the lengthened e-grade, whereas Latin sigmatic perfects generally reflect the zero-grade.^[68][69] For instance, the most frequently attested Latin sigmatic future,faxō, derives from the root*dʰeh₁-k-, whose expected sigmatic aorist*dʰḗh₁kst would regularly produce Proto-Italic*fēks- not*faks-.^[61] Additionally, the verbfaciō has a perfect formfēcī that itself most likely reflects a root aorist. It is possible that Proto-Italic may have preserved both an s-aorist and a root aorist; such a development would not be unparalleled in Indo-European as other languages such asAncient Greek can also continue both types of aorist. Nevertheless, de Melo still argues that it is unlikely Latin would continue both root and sigmatic aorists.^[69]

The conflict between sigmatic forms such asfaxō and perfects based on older root aorists such asfēcī may also be resolved if the former type was an innovative formation not directly based on a Proto-Italic aorist.^[70] Alternatively, de Melo proposes that lengthened grade aorists (i.e. "*dḗyḱst"), which also had a secondary full-grade stem (i.e.*déyḱsn̥t"), may have shortened according toOsthoff's law, thereby removing the distinguishing feature between the aorists and full-grade thematic presents (i.e. Proto-Italic*deikō). This hypothetical development could have caused the aorists to be reanalyzed as sigmatic forms belonging to the present stem. Consequently, when new sigmatic terms were created—such asfaxō—they utilized the present stem, and not the aorist.^[71] Lipp suggests that the formfaxō may have emerged via the addition of the s-suffix to the stemfac- found in the termfactus, which is the perfect passive participle to the termfaciō.^[48]

Lipp disputes the aoristic explanation for the Latin sigmatic future, arguing that the sigmatic forms lack a connection toperfectivity that would be expected should the terms have originated from the aorist.^[72] In particular, Lipp cites two passages: "opsecro, ne quid in te malifaxit ira percita." which he translates as "I beseech thee, lest blind ragedo in thee some evil," and "ne boanoxit," which he translates as "may a varicose vein nothurt."^[73] However, de Melo argues that—insubordinate clauses—the Latin sigmatic future may have functioned similarly to thefuture perfect tense, which marked actions as occurring prior to a specified point in the future.^[60] De Melo notes that—like future perfects—sigmatic forms are typically positioned inconditional clauses dependent upon amain clause with a simple future tense.^[74] Furthermore, sigmatic forms are often utilized in tandem with future perfect terms. For example, Plautus writes "Si hercle tu ex istoc loco digitum transvorsum aut unguem latumexcesseris aut sirespexis," which de Melo translates "By Hercules, ifyou shall have gone a finger's or a nail's breadth from your place, or ifyou shall have looked back." In this passage, the future perfect form "excesseris" is situated nearby the sigmatic form "respexis," perhaps implying a similar temporal value.^[74] According to de Melo, this future perfect meaning is semantically more easily traceable to the perfective aspect of the Proto-Indo-European aorist rather than any desiderative meaning.^[60] Nevertheless, the linguistDavide Bertocci argues that the future perfect meaning of the sigmatic forms contradicts a direct derivation from the Proto-Indo-European aorist, as the expression of anteriority is not exclusively concerned with aspect.^[68] Henceforth, Bertocci explains the s-infix as a preterital marker and not an aoristic morpheme.^[68]

The sigmatic aorist subjunctive and perfect subjunctive also frequently appear in statements that express specificallyprohibitive commands (e.g. "Nedixis istuc," "do not say that"^[75]), although they are not used for other types ofhortatory statements. De Melo suggests that this similarity could be explained if the sigmatic and perfect subjunctives shared a common origin. Since the perfect in Latin was most likely produced as a merger of the Proto-Indo-European aorist and stative, and because its usage in non-past prohibitions aligns with the semantics of the aorist, de Melo also postulates an aoristic source for the sigmatic forms in Latin.^[76] According to de Melo, the future perfect and perfect subjunctive forms may have once not necessarily expressed anteriority. In support of this theory, de Melo notes the existences of set phrases such as "nē fēcerīs" ("do not do [it]"), which appears to lack a past meaning and instead merely convey a perfective meaning.^[77] De Melo postulates that the shift of the future perfect towards expressions of anteriority occurred due to the semantic influence of the standard perfect tense, which usually functioned as a preterite.^[76] Nevertheless, de Melo argues that once the future perfect had evolved a specifically anterior meaning, the sigmatic future and aorist forms were—due to their perfective origins—were repurposed to describe non-specifically anterior perfective meanings.^[78] According to this theory, the development must have occurred after the Proto-Italic stage, as the standardClassical Latin future perfect tense and perfect subjunctive are both marked by infix-er- (i.e.dīxerō), a suffix of ultimately unclear origin that —due to its absence from Sabellic—certainly could not have appeared before theProto-Latino-Faliscan stage.^[79]

This conjugation pattern was derived from the PIE suffix*-eh₂-yé-ti, and formed primarily denominative verbs (I.e. deriving from a noun or an adjective).

Example Conjugation:*dōnā- (to give)^[80]

This conjugation pattern was derived from PIE *-éyeti, and formed causative verbs (I.e. expressing a cause) from "basic" 3rd conjugation verbs.

Example Conjugation:*mone- (to warn)^[81]

This conjugation pattern was derived from PIE *-éh₁ti (or the extended form *-eh₁yéti), and formed stative verbs (I.e. indicating a state of being).

Example Conjugation:*walē- (to be strong)^[82]

The bulk of Proto-Italic verbs were third-conjugation verbs, which were derived from Proto-Indo-European root thematic verbs. However, some are derived from other PIE verb classes, such as *linkʷō (PIE nasal-infix verbs) and *dikskō (PIE *sḱe-suffix verbs).

Example Conjugation:*ed-e/o- (to eat)^[83]

This conjugation was derived from PIE *ye-suffix verbs, and went on to form most of Latin 3rd conjugationio-variant verbs as well as some 4th conjugation verbs.

Example Conjugation:*gʷen-jo/je- (to come),^[84] from earlier*gʷəmjō

Only a handful of verbs remained within this conjugation paradigm, derived from the original PIE Root Athematic verbs.

Example Conjugation: *ezom (copula, to be)^[85][86]

In addition to these conjugations, Proto-Italic also has some deponent verbs, such as *ōdai (Perfect-Present), as well as *gnāskōr (Passive-Active).

During the transition from Proto-Indo-European into the Sabellic and Latino-Faliscan languages, the aorist and perfect merged into a single tense,^[87] referred to as the perfect in Latin and Sabellic grammar.^[88] In Latin and Sabellic, the perfect tense of a verb is formed via a unique perfect stem to which the inflectional endings are affixed. To form these perfect stems, both Italic branches often reused original aorist or perfect stems.^[89] In addition, there were some new innovations within the perfective aspect, with the -v- perfect (in Latinamō, amāvī) and the -u- perfect (moneō, monuī) being later innovations, for example.^{[citation needed]} Latin more typically preserved original sigmatic aorists, such as in the case ofdīx-, whereas Sabellic often preserved original root aorists.^[89] However, neither Italic branch exclusively preserved one type of aorist or perfect stem:^[90] The Latin perfect stemdīx- continues the Proto-Indo-European s-aorist*dḗyḱst,^[91] but the perfect stempeper- continues the Proto-Indo-European reduplicated perfect*pepórh₃e,^[92] and the perfect stemiēc- continues the full-grade k-aorist*(H)yéh₁kt.^[90][93] Moreover, the chosen stems in the two Italic branches are usually opposite: Where Latin continues an original perfect form, Sabellic typically preserves an aorist, and vice versa.^[94] According to Rix, if a verb stem is present in both the Latino-Faliscan and Sabellic branches, the present stem is identical in 90% of cases, but the perfect in only 50% of cases.^[86]

Due to the vast array of morphological distinctions between the perfect in Sabellic and Latino-Faliscan, it is generally held in the field of Italic linguistics that the aorist-perfect merger was completed independently in the Italic daughter languages, thereby preventing the branches from inheriting one unified system common to Proto-Italic.^[88][86] Furthermore, since Latino-Faliscan and Sabellic consistently continue opposite perfect and aorist stems, the linguist Gerhard Meiser argues that most Proto-Italic verbs likely had both perfect and aorist forms. Meiser concludes that—in Proto-Italic—these stems may not have differed significantly in meaning, and thus, a given form was selected for preservation in the daughter languages based on morphology rather than meaning.^[94] However, the linguist Reuben Pitts proposes that Old Latin, Faliscan, and the Sabellic languages shared far more morphological similarities than linguists such as Meiser suggest.^[95] If these theories are accepted, then this may indicate a later date for the divergences between the Sabellic and Latino-Faliscan perfect systems.^[96]

Pitts argues that both Italic clades likely opted for s-aorists in situations where a reduplicated perfect was notphonotactically permissible, particularly forms that lack a syllabic nucleus. For instance, the verb "coquō" bears the s-perfect stemcox- instead of the inadmissible reduplicated perfect form*kʷokʷkʷ-.^[97] Similarly, Oscankúmbened may preserve a thematic aorist, as opposed to the zero-grade reduplicated perfect*gʷegʷn-, which likely would have produced*bobn-. a form without a syllabic nucleus.^[98] The Latin verbfingō, though it bears an s-perfect stemfinx-, may have once utilized a reduplicated perfect, as shown by the closely related Faliscan termfifiked.^[96] Furthermore, long-vowel perfect stems such asēg- andfrēg- also appear in situations in which factors such as vowels or fricatives may have ensured that any reduplicated perfect would be phonologically unacceptable.^[99] The Latin verbfaciō, which formed a long-vowel perfect stemfēc-, is known to have at one point held a reduplicated perfect stem, as thePraeneste fibula attests to a formfhefhaked. However, this term may have eventually become phonotactically impermissible in Latin, perhaps—according to Pitts—due to rules within Latin concerning fricative reduplication.^[100]

Pitts cities further similarities in the long-vowel perfect formations of Sabellic and Latin. In Latin, long-vowel perfects typically display variation between short/ă/ in the present (i.e.faciō) and long/ē/ in the perfect, which—in some cases—regularly derived from a Proto-Indo-European form (i.e.fēc- < "*fēk-" < "*dʰeh₁-k-" ).^[101] However, this pattern extended to verbs where the long/ē/ would not have regularly emerged from Proto-Indo-European, such as in the Latin verbcapiō, which bears the long-vowel perfectcēp- instead of the expected form "*cāp-." According to Pitts, it is likely that these unusual forms were refashioned after terms such asfaciō.^[102] Pitts argues that this same sort of analogical remodeling may have affected Oscan, where the long-vowel perfecthipust contains an unexpected/p/ instead of the expected/b/, perhaps due to the influence of a stem likecēp-. He concludes that the presence of similar influences in both Oscan and Latin suggests to a common origin for this shared type of long-vowel perfects.^[99]

The linguist Michael Weiss postulates that some Latin long-vowel perfects may originate fromNarten-type presents in Proto-Indo-European.^[103] In support of the Narten theory, the linguist Jay Jasanoff notes that many long-vowel perfects in Latin derive from roots that form Narten-type presents.^[104] For instance, the Old Latin perfect form "surrēg-" attests to an original long-vowel perfect for the verb "regō," which itself derives from the root "*h₃reǵ-," for which a Narten present may be attested in Sanskrit "rā́ṣṭi."^[105] An alternative hypothesis holds that long-vowel perfects derive from reduplicated forms in Proto-Indo-European. For instance, the Latin perfect stemēd- is sometimes interpreted as a descendant of Proto-Indo-European*h₁e-h₁ód-e, although Jasanoff argues instead for a derivation from a Narten present.^[106] According to Jasanoff, the reduplication theory is sufficient to explain the Latin forms, although it does not properly explain the existence of other long–ēpreterites in the rest of the Indo-European family, thereby implying that a different form served as the common origin.^[107]

Outside of the perfect indicative, the perfect system in Latin is marked by an infix-er- before vowels (i.e.dūxerō) and-is- before consonants (i.e.dūxissem).^[108] The Sabellic languages, however, utilize the morpheme*-us- to mark their future perfect, which in Umbrian becomes-ur- antevocalically.^[108] Both forms are of unclear origin, and both have competing explanations designed to explain their provenance. Traditionally, the Latin morpheme-is- has been related to theiṣ-aorist of Sanskrit (i.e.akāṣīt),^[109] although this connection has since been rejected as the Sanskrit form is now regarded as resulting from the interaction an s-suffix and a stem ending in a laryngeal.^[110] According to the philologistHelmut Rix, both the Sabellic and Latin morphemes may derive from theuniverbation of the Proto-Indo-European suffix*-wós and the verb*ezom. If this theory is accepted, then the Sabellic suffix may be connected to the Oscan future formfust; verbs such as Oscantribarakattuset may derive from earlier*trēb-ark-ā-t-us-ed, itself possibly from*trēb-ark-ā-t-wos fust.^[111] However, the linguist Nicholas Zair notes that this theory relies on the presumed sound change of*-usfust into*-ust, which is otherwise unattested.^[112] Furthermore, Søborg argues if such univerbation did occur then, in Latin, the morpheme*-es- should have been retained in medial closed syllables.^[113] Rix proposes that*-es- was weakened to*-is- prior to univerbation (i.e.*portāwos izom. not*portāwos ezom), which may explain this discrepancy.^[114]

Jasanoff instead compares the Osco-Umbrian future perfect to the future perfect of Ancient Greek, which can be morphologically analyzed as a product of the affixation of the sigmatic marker to the perfect stem. For instance, the Ancient Greek future perfect formτεθνήξω (tethnḗxō) is merely an s-extension of the perfect form τέθνηκᾰ (téthnēkă).^[115] According to Jasanoff, it is likely that this type of sigmatic perfect was a common Italic form and probably underlies both the Sabellic and Latin future perfect paradigms.^[116] Jasanoff argues that Oscanfust probably originates as a dereduplicated form from earlier*fefust, whose stem may also be attested in Umbrianfefure.^[115] However, the identification offefure as a future perfect term is not uncontroversial, and the word may instead constitute a third-person plural future or a third-person singular imperfect subjunctive form.^[117] Regardless, Jasanoff argues that the stem*fefu- was likely inherited from Proto-Indo-European, and it may relate to Sanskritbabhū́va.^[115] Alternatively, Kortlandt comparesfefure and Oscanfifikus to reduplicated future formations in Old Irish, such as-didsiter.^[118] Iffefure andfust reflect the same Proto-Sabellic term, then the dereduplication in Oscan may be paralleled by terms such asdicust, which may derive from earlier*dedik-.^[119] However, Zair argues that it is unlikely such a development would affect a perfect stem*fefu- as this shift would render the future and future perfect forms identical, thereby encouraging speakers to retain the initial reduplication as a distinctive marker.^[120]

According to Jasanoff, the perfect form*fefu- was then suffixed with the sigmatic marker, creating a new future tense with stative value. The new future perfect form*fefust would have—according to Jasanoff—been paralleled by the simple perfect*fefed, which itself may have derived from earlier*fefwed. The*-w- in the latter form may have contributed to a reanalysis of*fefust in which the*-u- was no longer considered part of the stem. Consequently, the ending may have spread to other forms and gradually become generalized as the Osco-Umbrian future perfect marker. If this development is accepted, then perhaps earlier sigmatic futures would have consisted of terms such as*dedikst, which may have then been replaced by new forms such as*dedikust, itself possibly the precursor to Umbriandersicust.^[115] Similarly, Jasanoff proposes that the Latin future perfect emerged from the combination of an s-suffix and the perfect stem followed by the addition ofepenthetic*-i- to minimize morphological confusion. For instance, pre-Latin*deikō—which held an s-perfect stem*deiks-—would have formed a future perfect stem*deiks-s-, which would have been modified into*deiksis- to differentiate the term from the identical perfect stem. Afterwards, the term would have evolved into the attested Classical Latin future perfect stemdīxer-. Once this pattern was established, the epenthetic*-i- may have spread to other paradigms that did not originally necessitate the distinguishing marker.^[121] Thus, terms such astangō, whose archaic perfect stem was*tetag-, would have originally held a future perfect stem*tetags-, which may have then been analogically reshaped into*tetagis-, whencetetiger-.^[122]

Zair agrees that the Sabellic perfect was likely—within Proto-Sabellic—formed from the addition of a sigmatic suffix to the perfect stem. However, Zair suggests that the sigmatic marker was—at least in certain cases—added onto a perfect stem previously extended by the suffix*-ō, a development which occurred during the post-Proto-Italic period.^[123] According to Zair, roots of the shape*C(R)eH- will provide stative forms of the shape*CeC(R)oH-,^[124] whose final sequence*-oH may produce Proto-Italic*-ō, which was then reanalyzed as a component of the perfect stem.^[123] Thus, terms such as Oscanϝουρουστ may derive from the reduplicated stative*we-wróh₁-e, itself belonging to the root*wreh₁-.^[125] This suffix may have then spread to other forms, such as Umbriandersicust, which may derive from a pre-form*de-dik-ō-s- that possibly displaced the original perfect form*de-doik-e. The eventual completion of the aorist-perfect merger and the generalization of the aorist inflectional endings to the entire perfect tense in Oscan and Umbrian may have concealed the existence of the ō-perfect class, ensuring that the only remnants of this type survived in the future perfect paradigm.^[123] However, South Picene may have uniquely continued the original ō-perfect class, perhaps explaining the existence of South Picene forms such asopsút.^[126]

Bertocci argues that the Latin future perfect most likely originated from the sigmatic forms. According to Bertocci, the eventually emergence of the Latin split between the present and perfect systems orphaned the sigmatic forms, which could not be easily assigned to either category.^[68] Consequently, the sigmatic terms underwent a reanalysis in which—due to their anterior meaning—they were reassigned to perfect stems, perhaps giving rise to terms such as*fēk-s-, itself modeled after the perfect stemfēc-. This new stem may have been further augmented by the addition of-i-, which Bertocci suggests to have been related to the second-person singular perfect ending-isti. The result of these hypothetical developments would have been forms such as*fēk-i-s-, which may have eventually developed into the future perfect endings.^[127]

The aorist in Proto-Italic is characterized by the PIE secondary endings connected to the aorist stem by the appropriate thematic vowel. These endings are best attested in Sabellic, where aorist endings generally ousted the perfect ones;^[88] Latin instead generalized the perfect endings to its aorist-derived perfects.^[88] However, Faliscan preserved the original third-person plural active aorist ending *-ont, which eventually became the third-person plural active perfect ending in Faliscan. The Latin third-person plural active perfect ending,-ērunt, has likewise been interpreted as mix of-ēre and*-ont. Though, Fortson doubts this argument, citing the lack of any inscriptional evidence for the ending*-ont in Early Latin.^[89] Minor attestation for the Proto-Italic aorist imperative may appear in the Latin term "cedō," whose latter component, "*dō," presumably reflects a Proto-Italic form that itself derives from the Proto-Indo-European aorist imperative "*déh₃." Likewise, "cette," the plural form of "cedō," may reflect a Proto-Italic form "*-date," itself from the Proto-Indo-European second person plural aorist imperative "*dh₃té."^[128]

The following stem formations for the aorist are known:

• The simple root aorist, formed by simply attaching aorist endings to an unsuffixed root. If ablaut is available for a root, the root is in the e-grade in the singular and zero-grade in the plural.
• The s-aorist, where the root in thee-grade is suffixed with-s- to make the aorist stem.

The other main type of perfective formation in Italic was the perfect, which was derived from the Proto-Indo-European stative and had its own set of endings.

Perfect stems are created by areduplication process where a copy syllable consisting of the first consonant of the verb root followed bye is prefixed to the root. In Italic, Vine believes that the root either is in the zero grade or has the same vowel as the present stem, but De Vaan identified at least two perfects witho-grade in the root syllable. Latin and Sabellic also both attest a tendency in which if a root has asemivowel in the middle, this semivowel replacese in the copy syllable. If a verb root begins in*s followed by astop consonant, both consonants appear in the copy syllable and the root syllable loses the*s.

The perfect endings in Italic, which only survive in theLatino-Faliscan languages, are derived from the original PIE stative endings, but with an extra-i added after most of them.^[131]

An additional suffix-is- of difficult-to-trace origin was added in the evolution of Latin to the 2nd-person endings.

Further changes occurred during the evolution of individual Italic languages. This section gives an overview of the most notable changes. For complete lists, seeHistory of Latin and other articles relating to the individual languages.

• *xdebuccalises to[h]. *ɣ similarly becomes[ɦ] between vowels, but remains elsewhere. This change possibly took place within the Proto-Italic period. The result, whether[h] or[ɦ], was writtenh in all Italic languages. Initial *xl, *xr are reflected (in Latin at least) asgl,gr
• *θ(e)r, *ð(e)r > *f(e)r, *β(e)r in all but Venetic. Compare Veneticlouder-obos to Latinlīber, Faliscanloifir-ta, Oscanlúvfreis.
• *β, *ð> Latinb,d. In Osco-Umbrian the result isf (probably voiced) for both. In Faliscan, *β remains africative.
• *ɣʷ > *gʷ in Latin, which then develops as below. >f in Osco-Umbrian.
• *dw >b in classical Latin, although still retained in the archaic (seeDuenos inscription)
• *kʷ, *gʷ >p,b in Osco-Umbrian. They are retained in Latino-Faliscan and Venetic. In Latin, *gʷ >v[w] except after *n.
• *z > r in Classical Latin and Umbrian, but not in Old Latin or Oscan.
• Final -ā (fem. sg. nom., neut. pl. nom./acc.) >[oː] in Osco-Umbrian,^[a][132] but becomes short-a in Latin.
• Final *-ns (acc. pl. of various noun classes), *-nts (masc. nom. sg. of participles), and *-nt (neut. nom./acc. sg. of participles) developed in complex ways:^[133]

• Latin vowel reduction, during the Old Latin period. This merged many of the unstressed short vowels; most dramatically, all short vowels merged (usually to /i/) inopen medial syllables. Furthermore, all diphthongs became pure vowels except for *ai and *au (and occasionally *oi) in initial syllables.

• Italo-Celtic